Donald Trump ignored a travel ban intelligence report because it didn’t agree with him

Donald Trump is reportedly ignoring intelligence reports if they don’t agree with his own views. The 45th POTUS allegedly rejected a report from his own sources after it said the “Muslim ban” would not be effective.

The Department of Homeland Security noted that banning all citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries was an incredibly ineffective way of stopping terrorists coming to the US because “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.”

The Wall Street Journalsays the White House dismissed the findings on the ground that they were politically motivated and poorly researched.

“The intelligence community is combining resources to put together a comprehensive report using all available sources which is driven by data and intelligence and not politics”, said Spokesman Michael Short.

“The president asked for an intelligence assessment. This is not the intelligence assessment the president asked for,” an senior administration official added.

The report was carefully constructed to focus on potential terrorist threats from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Iran.

The DHS said that in the last six years foreign-born US residents who were “inspired” to participate in terror acts originated from 26 different countries.

Only Iraq and Somalia are among the top ten origin countries for foreign-born individuals engaged in terrorism in US.

The last terrorist attack on US-soil by a foreign group occurred during 9/11.

The Department of Homeland Security also found that 82 people, “primarily” based in the US who had been killed while engaging in acts of terrorism were born in America.

The WSJ report says the information was quickly constructed but pulled from information that analysts routinely collect to form counter-terrorism policies.

Gillian M. Christensen, DHS’ acting press secretary says the White House was disputing the “quality” of the report because it was constructed as “commentary” gathers from publicly available sources.

She said: “It is clear on its face that it is an incomplete product that fails to find evidence of terrorism by simply refusing to look at all the available evidence.

“Any suggestion by opponents of the president’s policies that senior intelligence officials would politicize this process or a report’s final conclusions is absurd and not factually accurate. The dispute with this product was over sources and quality, not politics.”